Saturday, August 1, 2015

This past Wednesday Cardinal Dolan opened his mouth and inserted both feet via a hit piece that he penned in the New York Daily News that targeted Donald Trump. Trump made it clear that he doesn't favor the de facto "open borders" policy of the Obama cartel (you know, Dolan's accomplice in guffaws at the Al Smith Dinner just before the election). By the way - as you read the piece please also read the comments; most of the commenters see through Dolan's chicanery.

Like most progressives, Dolan conveniently obscures the fact that most common-sense people simply oppose the influx of ILLEGAL immigrants (notice the emphasis?), not all immigration. He then calls Trump a "nativist" and invokes the specters of the Know-Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan. For now, we won't discuss the roots that these two entities have in the Democratic party.

This is not the first time that Dolan has shed his overly-jolly image. He can be quite vicious when he believes it will suit his progressive proclivities. Lest anyone forget how he threw Father Justin Wylie under the bus, please refresh your memories here. Let us also recall how Cardinal Dolan had Michael Voris ejected from his presence at the same parade where he marched with gays in New York. Cardinal Cheeshead can play the cut-throat well.

But sometimes the "cheesehead" persona will get the job done, it seems Dolan would think. In addition to the Al Smith Dinner, there is the "Meet The Press" interview that he did in March 2014 when Michael Sam came out as gay. What did a Prince of the Church have to say about the celebration of mortal sin, the kind that can damn a soul to hell? "Good for him. I would have no sense of judgment on him. God bless ya. I don’t think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us, well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, ‘Bravo.’"

So he has no "sense of judgment" regarding someone wallowing in intrinsic moral depravity and endangering his immortal soul. However, when someone voices an opinion that differs from him regarding some pet progressive cause - about which good people can disagree - well, he breaks out the long knives with all alacrity, decisiveness and I daresay vindictiveness. In a Mic'd Up last year, both Michael Voris and Judie Brown took the cardinal to task for this very two-faced defense of warped priorities on his part.

I called this post "tale of two Dolans". In reality, they are the same; only the facade changes to further the progressive agenda.

Friday, July 31, 2015

Over the past few days I and many other pro-life bloggers have been sharing videos produced by Center for Medical Reform. Four have been released so far. These videos provide prima facie evidence that Planned Parenthood is actively engaged in trafficking of baby body parts - parts that come from the babies whom they have murdered. Heavily implicated in this activity is a business partner of theirs known as Stem Express.

Stem Express, a California-based outfit, has obtained a restraining order from a California judge enjoining them from releasing videos that feature Stem Express personnel. David Daleiden, the driving force behind the videos, reveals in this Breitbart article why Stem Express wants the videos suppressed. On May 22 he and several others had a meeting with Cate Dyer, CEO of Stem Express. It came out in the interview that they (Stem Express) had obtained intact bodies of aborted babies from Planned Parenthood. This might indicate that the babies were born alive and subsequently murdered outside the womb. Even in today's callous pro-abortion culture, that would be a capital crime. No wonder they want these videos suppressed.

Now to the second question.

Again from Breitbart we learn the following troubling fact. The Health Policy Director for Speaker John Boehner's office staff is Charlotte Ivancic. She is older sister to Cate Dyer, the CEO of Stem Express, mentioned in the previous paragraph. Does the phrase "fox guarding the hen house" have significance here? Might this be a reason for Boehner's lack of resolve in defunding abortion, Obamacare, etc? At the very least, a top staffer of the Speaker of the House has an undeniable conflict of interest.

Boehner is not the only one. Presidential candidate Jeb Bush was founding director of the Bloomberg Family Foundation. He was named to that post in 2010 and resigned in 2014 as he prepared to announce his candidacy. While he was on the board, this foundation gave tens of millions to Planned Parenthood and funded international abortion efforts. Michael Bloomberg had always been up front about his vision for the foundation. It would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to insinuate that Bush had no knowledge of the foundation's pro-abortion fundings. I had discounted Bush as a candidate long ago; this news only confirms my instincts.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

From within the Vatican - and it probably originates all the way from the pope - there seems to be a duo-faceted attack on the faith. On the one hand, we see the pope shilling for population control vis-a-vis "sustainable developement.

Let's be clear. That is what he is in fact doing. Through various Vatican meetings (many of them quite recent) he has lobbied for the acceptance of the "Sustainable Development Goals" as promulgated by the United Nations. I wrote last week about that meeting of mayors that he hosted as did my colleague at Les Femmes. In that meeting he constantly harped on "sustainable development" while praising the pro-abortion mayors as "consciences of humanity". I point out now that Laudato Si is chock full of references to "sustainable development".

Michael Hichborn at Lepanto Institute released a piece to ask "Why Is The Vatican Pushing Communist Goals". Writing in advance of yet another meeting in November that is designed to explore ways to brainwash our children into being "sustainable development" lemmings, he shows the striking parallels between the UN's goals, Agenda 21 and the Communist Manifesto. I shudder to think how they will work all this into the Ordinary Synod on the Family (that is, sin-nod 2) next October. But for good measure, the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Bishop Sanchez (that's right! Him!) took a preemptive pot-shot at those of us who point out the evils of the United Nations (or, Useless Nicompoops). For the record, I'm a big critic of the UN and yet I don't make my living from oil, as if that were a bad thing. I mention it just to show the banality of Sanchez's "damage control".

So much for the "population control" and "sustainability" front. Now let's look at the direct attack on the family and sexual morality. We saw a major push to undermine Church tradition in last October's sin-nod. You might recall that when that closed the pope gave a talk in which he said that we had a "year to mature" in anticipation for "sin-nod 2". I wrote a bit on the "shadow council" that took place at the Vatican about six weeks ago. Today ChurchMilitant.tv reported and commented on additional details of that meeting. They are correct in that what came from the "shadow council" truly is heresy of darkness. As you read that, it seems like a throwback to gobblygoop from the 1960s all over again. Since none of these participants have been ousted from any positions, we must conclude that their heresies are tolerated by the Vatican, if not embraced.

I suspect we'll see these two facets of the progressive attack on the Church in the upcoming sin-nod. Keep those prayers and Rosaries coming!

In this one you can hear the little Frankensteins guffawing that their victim/specimen is a boy. Well, golly gee! How does "mere tissue" have gender? Planned Parenthood is now trying to suppress these videos: not at all surprising, coming from those ghouls. Anyway, they and their supporters - right up to the occupants of the White House - need to be held accountable.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

About 35 years ago, I was walking towards home with some friends, one of whom was an older lady with a heart condition. I spied another friend hiding in the bushes up ahead. Knowing her, I realized she was preparing to leap out of the bush to scare my older friend. I realized it was intended to be a prank, but also realized that she was not aware of the older lady's heart problem. Fearing that her heart might not withstand the momentary fright, I made a split-second decision to diffuse the prank by greeting my friend loudly in the bush. I was not inclined to presume that the prank would have been harmless; any momentary "jollies" from the prank simply wasn't worth the risk.

Up until that moment I myself had been somewhat of a prankster, but afterwards never again pulled another prank. That incident was a learning experience for me. I pondered just what was entailed in the execution of a prank. Usually it involves one or more people deciding that they will contrive a situation that provokes a desired emotional reaction in another person (or maybe several people are targeted). Usually the desired emotional reaction is one of discomfort to the targeted person(s): humiliation, fright, frustration, disorientation, anger, etc. The goal is invariably the amusement of those perpetrating the prank. I've often heard it described as "one person toying with another person". That actually says quite a lot about the prank - and its underlying immorality.

People are not toys. They are human beings, created in the image and likeness of God and deserve to be treated with dignity at all times. That means that they are never to be manipulated, let alone for mere amusement: not even for "just a few moments". It is the epitome of arrogance to presume to tinker with someone's emotions, often not caring about them and what they may be enduring in their lives at the time pranksters target them. And yes, I include myself in that accusation for things I did when I was younger and a lot more stupid. I can only thank Our Lord that when I was pulling pranks, social media had not yet been invented for now pranks are memorialized for all to see whenever they want, motivating pranksters all the more. Another downside to the internet medium is that anyone taking issue with the prank is met with all sorts of venom.

Here is a video of a father pulling a prank on his toddler daughter. Needless to say she has no choice in the matter but she's young enough - now - not to realize what's happening. I do direct your attention to the comments posted thereon. A few of us voiced objection to the video. Notice how we are pounced upon with a great deal of vituperation. We are told we have "serious issues" and need "personality transplants" all because we didn't join all the chortling. But they all "love" the puzzled expressions on the child's face; in other words, her disorientation was "cute" but those of us who sympathized with the child were scorned. Perhaps it's because we spoke too much truth to consciences and/or we didn't go along with the prescribed "group-think".

Here's another. Here we have the perpetrators impersonating police officers and actually getting into the cars of the victims. What right did they have to pull the people over and interrupt their lives even if just for ten minutes? Yes, they did show the folks who laughed at it; did they apologize to those who weren't charmed by the waste of their time? As far as the police impersonation goes, that's bad enough (last time I checked it was a crime to impersonate a police officer). I sincerely hope that those weren't real police officers engaged in that nonsense for that would be an unconscionable misappropriation of citizens' tax dollars.

Then there's this. Actors impersonating elderly people are crossing the street with the deliberate intent of hindering cars and frustrating their drivers. Obstruction of traffic is a crime for very good reason. As I said (and my friends agreed) there is no justification for treating the drivers as so many toys to be prodded for their reactions. Those conducting the prank obviously didn't consider that the drivers might need to be about their business, nor did they give a damn. They just had to get their internet fame and yocks, no matter the impact on other people.

As I said in the first three paragraphs, I no longer believe that participation in pranks is morally acceptable. Those perpetrating the pranks are failing, even refusing, to treat their targets with the respect and charity that is due to them as human beings. It doesn't matter that the prank may last only a few minutes. No one has the right to toy with another person, especially for mere amusement.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

We knew more videos from Center for Medical Progress would come out; here is the third. In this one, an ex-employee of Stem Express shares her perspective from the inside. We also see undercover video of pro-aborts hovering over a petri dish with parts of a murdered child, discussing the marketability of the parts of his/her body. Planned Parenthood - where #blackliversmatter.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Today abcnews.com showed an interview between George Stephanopoulos and Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood president. They were discussing the two videos (see here and here) showing that Planned Parenthood is selling the various body parts of babies whom they murdered vis-a-vis abortion. Throughout the interview, Richards tries to say that the two doctors' comments were taken out of context. She conveniently fails to mention that the full, unedited encounters are available for anyone to view on the website of Center for Medical Progress, the organization that made possible the exposition of Planned Parenthood's bloody but lucrative enterprise.

We've now seen two videos. The Center for Medical Progress indicates that even more are yet to come. In the second video link, you can see that it starts with Richards' lame attempt at "damage control". I post below a parody of Richard's attempt. It is from that video that I derived inspiration for the hashtag above. Another hashtag on Twitter is #handsupdontcrush. There will be more to post.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

This past Tuesday the Vatican hosted about 150 mayors of cities throughout the world with the ostensible goal of "combating climate change". Ten of those were US mayors, most being pro-abortion. They included Bill De Blasio of New York. Joining them was CA Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. They met in a workshop entitled "Modern Slavery and Climate Change: The Commitment of the Cities". Hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, the meeting was hosted by rabid population-control advocate Jeffrey Sachs. I've written about both these before in recent months.

As Breitbart points out, Tuesday's seminar was immediately followed by another, in conjunction with the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network on Cities and the Sustainable Development Agenda entitled "Prosperity, People and Planet in the Cities". Notice how that phrase "sustainable development" keeps popping up like kudzu? Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are being bombarded with that phrase deliberately so that we will be accustomed to it and not notice when the death-dealing underpinnings of "sustainable development" are fully implemented in our midst.

The pope addressed the attendees at the first meeting; Zenit has the full English text. While it is indeed a rambling mess, we can see within it the insinuations of progressive poison. I'm going to address a few of these points. Again, there seems to be very little organization of thought here but there are some odd things that must be pointed out.

He ended one paragraph by claiming that "wars are an element of the imbalance of environment". No. James 4:1-5 has a bit to say of the origins of wars. Mother Teresa of Calcutta had words of wisdom on the topic when, at the 1994 prayer breakfast, she uttered, "But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?" Recall that many, if not most, of the attendees of this workshop are actively facilitating this "destroyer of peace".

Further on down the pope said, "man is creator of lack of culture because he doesn't look after the environment." The only way that can be accurate is if "environment" = God. Culture becomes debased when man's disobedience to God becomes ingrained in the culture, as has happened to western civilization over these past few decades. Hallmarks of this "lack of culture" have been:

the removal of any mention of God in official public life (ending of prayer in schools, removal of crosses and Ten Commandment plaques from public buildings, etc)

the legalization and even promotion of contraception and abortion by civil government

the exaltation of sexual perversion and disdain for true families by the culture at large.

These have been both cause and effect of the degradation of culture. The size of "carbon footprints" and other such nonsense have little, if anything, to do with the health of real culture. Most, if not all, the city officials in attendance have fostered these detriments to real culture. The pope would have done well to address these. Instead, he made no mention of these and chose to utter politically-correct ramblings. After the meeting de Blasio was interviewed and the transcript is on Zenit. De Blasio is quoted as saying, "He is moving people on an extraordinary level. And we have few truly international leaders in any sense. What he is doing is creating an international voice of conscience," and "He is literally saying to us that we need to reset our assumptions and think more deeply and morally about our actions, because our current sense of practicality is digging our graves, and I think his voice is having a very big moral impact."

I'll be impressed with this "very big moral impact" when de Blasio and ilk do a 180-degree turn and stand for the unborn babies and true marriage in their respective localities. Otherwise it will be made plain that one effect of this whole charade is to let pro-abortion pols be enabled in their "lack of culture" policies by misguided papal affirmation.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

First, ht to An Archdiocese of Washington Catholic. While he may have been late with this, I missed it altogether. But this blooper by Cardinal Wuerl is a whopper, and that's saying something, coming from him.

LifeSiteNews alerted us all yesterday about Wuerl's reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. Recall that during a Mic'd Up presentation in the wake of the #mowwidge ruling, Michael Voris wondered aloud where the Archdiocese of Washington might be. Well, maybe this is at least a partial answer to the question. In typical double-speak fashion, Wuerl is being very coy about the matter - so coy, though, that he may be tipping his hand a tad.

He said, "On a very practical level, there is a concern about the new definition of ‘spouse’ and its legal ramifications. In this area for example, we must find a way to balance two important values, the provision of appropriate health care benefits for all Church personnel including their spouses, and the avoidance of the perception that by doing so we accept a definition of marriage and spouse contrary to faith and revealed truth." Whoa! Let's unpack this mess, shall we?

If a given "Church personnel" is in a same-sex #mowwidge, his/her accomplice in perversion is not - repeat, NOT - a "spouse"! The "Church personnel" and accomplice in mortal sin are endangering their souls and each other's by virtue of their #mowwidge and attendant perversions.

Since when is it an "important value" of the Church to affirm people in mortal sin? I would think the reverse would be true, to dissuade them from their sin and lead them to repentance so that they don't wind up in hell.

Wuerl claims he would like to avoid the "perception" of "accepting a definition of marriage and spouse contrary to faith". In this case, "perception" is not the problem; it's the reality of the chancery's capitulation to gay-nazis' bastardization of "mowwidge. If he really wants to avoid the "perception", he must rediscover the Faith and grow a backbone to defend Christ's teachings.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are not finished for there is more double-speak gobblygoop to decipher.

"The law of the land is the law of the land. We certainly follow what the law says. That doesn’t mean we change the word of God. That doesn’t mean we change the scriptures, or the church’s millennia-long tradition of what marriage is... The Church has better things to do than spend millions of dollars on lawsuits. The Church will abide by the law."

"The law of the land is the law of the land" says absolutely nothing. It's like saying "the truck is the truck." So what?

"We certainly follow what the law says. That doesn't mean we change the word of God." Well no. But if the "law that you're following" is directly opposed to the Word of God, the act of following that law puts you in disobedience to the word of God.

"The Church has better things to do than spend millions of dollars on lawsuits." So just put in that pinch of incense to the idols of the moment. Is that how the Church Militant offers homage to the One True God?

"The Church will abide by the law." Well, there you have it! The stage for capitulation is set!

I wrote a few weeks ago how Cardinal Wuerl breathed down the neck of one of his priests who decried the #mowwidge nonsense from the State of Maryland. Of course all this puts his maltreatment of Father Guarnizo in new light, doesn't it?

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

In a case very reminiscent to the situation that happened in my own parish in February 2012, a priest of the Diocese of Baton Rouge denied Holy Communion to a man who is living in #mowwidge last week. As in the case of Father Guarnizo who denied Holy Communion to a flagrant lesbian, he too was tossed under the bus by his local bishop. There was a write-up in a local paper about the matter; Father Z does an excellent job of dissecting the journalistic goop.

Church Militant TV has an article on the matter. In the article it is alleged that the Archdiocese of New Orleans issued an apology to the sodomite although it has not released a statement. Unfortunately it is established fact that the Diocese of Baton Rouge did reprimand Father Mark Beard's obedience to Canon 915. Again this hearkens back to what happened in the Archdiocese of Washington three years ago, as chronicled in the first hyperlink.

From the statements about the apologies, I gather that the Diocese of Baton Rouge is within the deanery of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. Church Militant TV reported that the Archdiocese of New Orleans has quite a gay-infestation problem of its own. They have screen shots of the page explicitly condoning gay sex. CMTV reports that the site was recently taken down. However, that occurred only after several Catholic sites correctly stated that the New Orleans page overtly condoned mortal sin. The archdiocesan spokesperson said "an unauthorized individual" posted the material, but answered no questions as to the fate of this alleged scapegoat. I wonder, too, how long had the material been there. Are we to believe that not one single person in that entire archdiocese knew about that problem and did not raise their voice? I'm sure at least one person did - and was summarily dismissed. They took it down only because they were embarrassed into doing so. Their unauthorized person should be fired, as should be the spokesperson of the Diocese of Baton Rouge; if they oppose Catholic moral teaching, they've no business earning their livings off the Church.